Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

You’re right that when there are false teachings there is separation, you’re also right that fixing it would prove impossible. Your Church was not employing Matthew 18, rather beliefs were dictated (again, even if “not officially” )and people believed them.

Well we certainly wouldn’t burn our alien abductor friends alive would we? We would condemn them and pray.

You need to get off the burning alive thing. It is completely irrelevant. I’d challenge that at that time there was not a single Christian denomination that did not believe in burning criminals alive. Even the beloved puritans who greatly influenced your Evangelical Church burned “witches” alive. Those people were far less worthy of death than a treasonous person dividing civil society.

So unless you want me to answer all your arguments by pointing out all the sins of evangelicalism, I suggest you leave the straw man down.

Now,

Try this on for size.

Did you ever consider that your Christian tradition could be just as far from the church of the apostles as this alien church?

If they used the Bible Alone, why could it not be possible?

Yeah they read the Bible through the lens of their teachers, but so do you.

In 500 years if popular enough, this alien church could become the Protestant church. They would feel they had “the majority opinion”.

History shows plenty of strange notions like this taking hold. Look at Mormonism. It’s growing immensely while mainline Protestant congregations die. Could Mormonism one day be the Protestant majority?

What about SDA’s? Or perhaps Jehovah’ Witness?

Or any number of others.

 

[dronald]

If you just give me the name of the Archbishop you mentioned I will search the thread and check the source.

For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? Treatise on the Priesthood (excerpt)
by St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)

So if I was alive during the year 347-407, I would be told that I shall not escape the fires of Hell because I do not believe a Priest is needed in order to take communion.

Muslims don’t even take communion and yet:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

John Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Antioch I believe.

As for your statement that no Pope has ever said anything contrary to CC teachings; I suppose that’s only true if you accept Spiritual Moral Relativism. I don’t accept such a Philosophy, in fact; burning heretics was never the will of the Spirit imo.

 

[dronald]

You need to get off the burning alive thing. It is completely irrelevant. I’d challenge that at that time there was not a single Christian denomination that did not believe in burning criminals alive. Even the beloved puritans who greatly influenced your Evangelical Church burned “witches” alive. Those people were far less worthy of death than a treasonous person dividing civil society.

So unless you want me to answer all your arguments by pointing out all the sins of evangelicalism, I suggest you leave the straw man down.

Now,

Try this on for size.

Did you ever consider that your Christian tradition could be just as far from the church of the apostles as this alien church?

If they used the Bible Alone, why could it not be possible?

Yeah they read the Bible through the lens of their teachers, but so do you.

In 500 years if popular enough, this alien church could become the Protestant church. They would feel they had “the majority opinion”.

History shows plenty of strange notions like this taking hold. Look at Mormonism. It’s growing immensely while mainline Protestant congregations die. Could Mormonism one day be the Protestant majority?

What about SDA’s? Or perhaps Jehovah’ Witness?

Or any number of others.

I’ll actually stick with my burning people alive as a reason to leave a Church belief. If your Church now was burning heretics (let’s say JW’s and Mormons) I can only assume that any human being with a heart would leave it.

I then turn around and see that my Church is practicing witch burning… well I certainly will stay away from there as well. If I had a choice between witch burning and burning heretics I would probably see if some people wanted to form a Church without such.

As for Mormons, let’s not lump them with Protestants. It’s strange how Catholics see all non-Catholics alike. Jw’s perverted the Bible and Mormons follow a false Prophet.

You might as well say Protestants are wrong because Muslims exist.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Dronald,

It is disappointing to see your lack of academic honesty, for example pulling the catechism out of context.

For example you quoted to infer the church believes the Muslim faith is valid;

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

And yet anyone who diligently read the entirety of the section, let alone the whole catechism would know instantly you create a very fragile straw man,

Reading on

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

**844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
**
**Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.**333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Mission - a requirement of the Church’s catholicity

**849 The missionary mandate. “Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be ‘the universal sacrament of salvation,’ the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men”:**339 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."340

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord’s missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."341 The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.342

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’ll actually stick with my burning people alive as a reason to leave a Church belief. If your Church now was burning heretics (let’s say JW’s and Mormons) I can only assume that any human being with a heart would leave it.

I then turn around and see that my Church is practicing witch burning… well I certainly will stay away from there as well. If I had a choice between witch burning and burning heretics I would probably see if some people wanted to form a Church without such.

As for Mormons, let’s not lump them with Protestants. It’s strange how Catholics see all non-Catholics alike. Jw’s perverted the Bible and Mormons follow a false Prophet.

You might as well say Protestants are wrong because Muslims exist.

Mormonism has just as much authority for their beliefs as you. In fact perhaps more since they claim divine revelation for their sect.

Once again I ask, show me one church that did not believe burning enemies alive was ok in the 16th and 17th century.

They ALL did.

And THEY ALL DID IT

Sounds like you may have argued your way out of Christianity.

Perhaps try Buddhism.

 

[dronald]

Dronald,

It is disappointing to see your lack of academic honesty, for example pulling the catechism out of context.

For example you quoted to infer the church believes the Muslim faith is valid;

And yet anyone who diligently read the entirety of the section, let alone the whole catechism would know instantly you create a very fragile straw man,

Reading on

I was contrasting the CCC with what was said about all those who do not take part in the Eucharist are damned. That’s nothing like what you posted, especially this part:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[dronald]

Mormonism has just as much authority for their beliefs as you. In fact perhaps more since they claim divine revelation for their sect.

Once again I ask, show me one church that did not believe burning enemies alive was ok in the 16th and 17th century.

They ALL did.

And THEY ALL DID IT

Sounds like you may have argued your way out of Christianity.

Perhaps try Buddhism.

Now ask me which one of those Churches I belong to.

They all did it and they all were misguided, hence the numerous denominations. Because everyone can call out anyone for evil our Churches are now peaceful. I’m actually quite thankful that we’re not living with what Muslims have to deal with.

The Mormonism bit I’ll ignore because that’s just plain ridiculous and only proves how dangerous it is to have one sole authority.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That I seek God with an open heart and an open conscience. I love Him with all my heart and seek to do His will and He’s put me in a position where I can (not through myself) lead others to Christ.

God is doing amazing things in my life.

Those are legitimate reasons to not be Catholic?

Ah…because Catholics don’t have any of those experiences. Got it.

 

[SPH1]

So un-baptized enfants are saved or not? How is your belief that they are (even though the Church won’t touch this one) and my exact same belief any different?

What if the child hits 5?
10?
13?
20?
50?

The simple answer for both our beliefs is, “we don’t know.”

Now it’s your turn to stop dodging. Can infants and others be saved without Christ or not?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Now ask me which one of those Churches I belong to.

They all did it and they all were misguided, hence the numerous denominations. Because everyone can call out anyone for evil our Churches are now peaceful. I’m actually quite thankful that we’re not living with what Muslims have to deal with.

The Mormonism bit I’ll ignore because that’s just plain ridiculous and only proves how dangerous it is to have one sole authority.

Oh dronald, but you do belong to those churches. Your a mix of Calvin Luther and Zuingli. All of who participated in this. You are closely descended from the puritans who did as well.

Just because your church was founded in 19whenever doesn’t mean it’s roots are not much deeper.

For example,

If we closed the doors on the Catholic Church and reopened it as the First reformed Catholic Church then you would carry the same objection even though we say we don’t “belong” to that church anymore.

Further , the only way revealed by God for salvation is through baptism and following the gospel as laid out by the church.

Any possible salvation outside that is a hope or speculation and trust in God’s mercy.

 

[dronald]

Those are legitimate reasons to not be Catholic?

Ah…because Catholics don’t have any of those experiences. Got it.

I’m baffled that this is the conclusion you came to based on my posts in this thread.

Just because I say that Protestants love God does not mean I think Catholics don’t. I haven’t even come close to claiming such a thing, I’m rather quoting your Catechism and applying it to myself.

If you’ve got a problem with me seeking God with an open heart and searching for truth even while not being “Catholic” take it up with the Pope.

Now it’s your turn to stop dodging. Can infants and others be saved without Christ or not?

I don’t dodge questions, I’ll say what I say frequently here; if I ever miss something it’s because I can get upwards from 4 to 10 replies per my post. You’d be amazed at how hard it is to not be Catholic on a Catholic forum.

And yes, like you we believe only through Jesus are we saved and the un-baptized can be saved as well. Some Catholics believe this, others do not; that’s why I brought it up.

Oh dronald, but you do belong to those churches. Your a mix of Calvin Luther and Zuingli. All of who participated in this. You are closely descended from the puritans who did as well.

Just because your church was founded in 19whenever doesn’t mean it’s roots are not much deeper.

For example,

If we closed the doors on the Catholic Church and reopened it as the First reformed Catholic Church then you would carry the same objection even though we say we don’t “belong” to that church anymore.

Further , the only way revealed by God for salvation is through baptism and following the gospel as laid out by the church.

Any possible salvation outside that is a hope or speculation and trust in God’s mercy.

I don’t think so, but that’s fine if you think that about us all being connected. Either way doesn’t upset me, but if you lived during THAT TIME it would be time to get out of that Church.

Remembering that I don’t accept Spiritual Moral Relativism

 

[JonNC]

My answer is that most of the disagreements between Protestant Churches are not worth arguing over.

I think the most legitimate one is Real Presence vs Symbolic Presence. I believe that most Protestant Churches believe that the Eucharist is a complete mystery in that we could never fully comprehend it, while some other Protestant Churches take it symbolically. Oddly though, we are all grounded by Paul’s words that if we take it in an unworthy manner we condemn ourselves, so we’re all careful that only Christians may partake. I don’t think the mystery behind the Eucharist is defined entirely by most Protestant Churches and we trust God that we should examine ourselves and place all Faith in Him before partaking.

What we understand about the mystery of the Eucharist doesn’t change what the Eucharist is really about. When taken by Protestants we must trust God that He’ll guide us and not rely on our own understanding. This is another matter of not arguing over something but rather trusting in God.

Baptism is another; although it makes complete sense to me that one must understand why they are getting Baptized before being Baptized if a Protestant Church teaches that one ought to be Baptized at birth it’s not as if we believe they are damned to Hell. And I don’t believe other Protestant Churches believe that those who profess Faith in Jesus Christ before being Baptized are damned to Hell if they die before being Baptized sooner.

Are we praying and asking for God to guide us? If we do and fully trust in Him anyone who says God won’t pull through is a liar. Infant Baptism, Eucharist, what we eat, what days we worship, etc.

The sacraments, as you mentioned, soteriology, ecclesiology, in many instances eschatology. At least from a Lutheran POV, the differences are more than worth arguing about.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m baffled that this is the conclusion you came to based on my posts in this thread.

Just because I say that Protestants love God does not mean I think Catholics don’t. I haven’t even come close to claiming such a thing, I’m rather quoting your Catechism and applying it to myself.

If you’ve got a problem with me seeking God with an open heart and searching for truth even while not being “Catholic” take it up with the Pope.

I was being facetious. But you actually make my case: Catholics experience the same things you have described; therefore, those things cannot be a legitimate reason to remain outside the Catholic Church because you could have them inside the Church, also.

So, what are some legitimate reasons for remaining Protestant?

 

[dronald]

I was being facetious. But you actually make my case: Catholics experience the same things you have described; therefore, those things cannot be a legitimate reason to remain outside the Catholic Church because you could have them inside the Church, also.

So, what are some legitimate reasons for remaining Protestant?

I don’t believe God is calling me to the CC just yet, if He has and I missed it then I beg His forgiveness. So many people are coming to Jesus through this Church including former non-believer friends of mine. It’s really amazing; and I pray that millions more come to Jesus through the Roman CC.

Gah, let me edit before someone takes this out of context again:

The Catholic Church is doing many wonderful things for charity, and non-believers. Just so that myself saying my Church is leading many to Christ doesn’t mean the CC isn’t a fantastic Church doing the same, with wonderful people.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t believe God is calling me to the CC just yet, if He has and I missed it then I beg His forgiveness. So many people are coming to Jesus through this Church including former non-believer friends of mine. It’s really amazing; and I pray that millions more come to Jesus through the Roman CC.

Gah, let me edit before someone takes this out of context again:

The Catholic Church is doing many wonderful things for charity, and non-believers. Just so that myself saying my Church is leading many to Christ doesn’t mean the CC isn’t a fantastic Church doing the same, with wonderful people.

God will use you where he finds you. I am confident he works wherever people seek him. Whether that’s the best you can offer him is something only you can answer and something everyone of is must evaluate everyday.

In reading your comment I could not help but think of people like Scott Hahn or Dr Bergsma, or Marcus Grodi, or many others who were so active in Protestant evangelization. Who were pastors of churches, or missionaries or seminarians and involved in bringing people to Christ in amazing ways.

God used them where they were. And part of why they were effective then and now is they were open to following God even when it led to a place they least expected in The Catholic Church.

That openness to God has led to continual flourishing and for even greater expansion of the gospel ( and now they bring people into the fullness of Christs truth.) ok I just had to add that last line

Have you ever watched "the Journey Home " ? It’s archived on YouTube and is conversion stories to Catholicism from all walks of life and religions. If say it’s worth watching some episodes, particularly the ones of people from your tradition.

 

[jmcrae]

Genuine question: if we don’t have female clergy because Christ had only male apostles, why do we have uncircumcised clergy? In other words, why is maleness seen as substance, and circumcision as accident?

Bottom line: The Apostles had the authority to ordain whom they chose to become priests, Bishops, and deacons. They chose from among both circumcised and uncircumcised men (ie: St. Luke, St. Timothy), but they did not ordain any women.

This is why the Church has no authority to ordain women - it was not given that authority by the example of the Apostles.

We can speculate on the reasons, we can disagree, and we can wonder what they were thinking, but the fact remains that they did not ordain women, even though they easily could have - there were many women involved in the leadership of the Early Church - Priscilla, Joanna, Dorcas, and many others - but these women were never ordained to the priesthood, and they never became Bishops.

The Church simply doesn’t have the authority to overturn the Apostolic Tradition, and indeed it would cease to be the Church if it were ever to do so.

 

[jmcrae]

So, what are some legitimate reasons for remaining Protestant?

Protestant communities are not so much about religion or religious experiences as they are about family connections.

There is no reason for a Protestant to offend his family and become disinherited to become Catholic, if Catholicism doesn’t offer anything more or anything better than his current Protestant family already gives him, together with a place to belong, a house to live in, and an inheritance.

That was actually one of the reasons it took me 17 years to convert to the Catholic faith. I liked the Catholic Church, and I wanted to become Catholic, but as long as everything I found in the Catholic Church was pretty much the same as, or a nicer version of, what I already had in my Protestant community with my closest friends and my blood kin, then why would I become Catholic?

It was only when I realized that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ (and no other) - and that it is the Catholic Church that He saves, and no other - that I realized I needed to become Catholic - even at the risk of homelessness, loneliness, and poverty.

 

[Porknpie]

So un-baptized enfants are saved or not? How is your belief that they are (even though the Church won’t touch this one) and my exact same belief any different?

DRonald,

I’m not sure if you understand the Church’s position or not. They DO touch the subject.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The debate in the early Church was whether to baptise on the day of birth, the day after or on the 8th day.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

If you’ve got a problem with me seeking God with an open heart and searching for truth even while not being “Catholic” take it up with the Pope.

RDonald, for that you have my respect. I do believe that you follow your conscious.

I don’t dodge questions, I’ll say what I say frequently here; if I ever miss something it’s because I can get upwards from 4 to 10 replies per my post. You’d be amazed at how hard it is to not be Catholic on a Catholic forum.

and thank you for being here.

And yes, like you we believe only through Jesus are we saved and the un-baptized can be saved as well. Some Catholics believe this, others do not; that’s why I brought it up.

it only matters what the Church teaches.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t believe God is calling me to the CC just yet, if He has and I missed it then I beg His forgiveness. So many people are coming to Jesus through this Church including former non-believer friends of mine. It’s really amazing; and I pray that millions more come to Jesus through the Roman CC.

Gah, let me edit before someone takes this out of context again:

The Catholic Church is doing many wonderful things for charity, and non-believers. Just so that myself saying my Church is leading many to Christ doesn’t mean the CC isn’t a fantastic Church doing the same, with wonderful people.

It’s really about the sacraments, those visible signs by which Christ gives us grace, especially the reception of Christ in the Eucharist, practiced by the Church since day one. Hard to argue with 2,000 years of Catholic … And Orthodox belief on this subject.

PnP